What moral truth is about to "wink out of existence" for the Trumpists? Is it pretty much anything that the "liberal fascists" question, like the evils of homosexuality or the superiority of the white race?
I really enjoyed this post about Strauss. I haven’t studied Strauss, so your posts are my introduction to him. There are elements of Straussian thought as described in your post in the type of mindfulness practice I am familiar with- observing- but that could just be me identifying patterns where none exist. There also seem to be similarities with existentialism and existentialists by rejecting the ability to identify objective truth/meaning, and instead focusing on experience itself. From your posts, it seems that Strauss adopted or used an “as if” framework for moral thinking, that is, in the area of moral/ethical thinking and action, acting “as if” we know the difference between and can accurately judge “right” from “wrong.” Under that Framework, even if one is radically skeptical of knowing things objectively, one can act as if, for example, Churchill is better than Stalin.
I don’t know why I prefer one thing over another. So although I find myself disgusted by the new “conservatism” in the Trumpist mold, and I can articulate why, I’m never sure that the analytical framework I use to articulate my disgust is more than a post hoc rationalization justifying what I prefer.
outstanding summary. I've read Bloom's book several times, but I think with your thesis in mind I'm going to read it again with a fresh set of eyes.
That said, I do think that the intellectual left overstates the degree to which Strauss has influenced conservative thought. I think for example that Russell Kirk, Hayek, Ayn Rand, et. al, have been much bigger intellectual influences. Dollars to donuts, 99% of conservatives have never heard of Strauss, and the most influential Straussian work to appear to date (Bloom's book) mentions him only in passing.
As a conservative, this really hit home: "A sense of desperation about the political fate of moral truth can inspire a panicked response that seems to excuse the abandonment of ordinary restraints on tactics, with whatever works becoming the overriding principle."
Man, that is so true. I think that those of us on the right who still believe in liberal democracy need to always keep that in mind. How we do things matter as much or more than what we do.
You have written an excellent short presentation of Strauss’s philosophical outlook that rightly distinguishes the “True Straussians” who “view politics with a measure of ironic distance” from the Claremont Straussians who are in a perpetual state of unjustifiable moral panic.
I was fortunate enough to study with one of the True Straussians. On occasions he would remark to his students, “You could do worse than to take to heart the old Greek saw “Love as if you would one day hate, and hate as if you would one day love.” He would also say, “Sometimes it’s better to stick with the disaster you know rather than switch to the one you don’t know.” Strauss’s writing is full of irony, and irony is incompatible with anything having to do with Trump. One of my favorites is his stinging characterization that Locke's political philosophy in the end boils down to the proposition that, "Life is the joyless quest for joy."
I suspect these two entries have a more narrow appeal, but as someone who opted not to go the Master's route after getting Poli Sci degree, I enjoy these types of posts as they are a bit of a teaser of what awaited me.
Strauss' ascent out of the cave beneath the cave reminded me powerfully of Jonathan Haidt's plea to liberals to become aware of other moral goods besides those of WEIRD people.
What moral truth is about to "wink out of existence" for the Trumpists? Is it pretty much anything that the "liberal fascists" question, like the evils of homosexuality or the superiority of the white race?
Those who feel this way point to pretty much every change since the progressive reforms of the Wilson administration.
I really enjoyed this post about Strauss. I haven’t studied Strauss, so your posts are my introduction to him. There are elements of Straussian thought as described in your post in the type of mindfulness practice I am familiar with- observing- but that could just be me identifying patterns where none exist. There also seem to be similarities with existentialism and existentialists by rejecting the ability to identify objective truth/meaning, and instead focusing on experience itself. From your posts, it seems that Strauss adopted or used an “as if” framework for moral thinking, that is, in the area of moral/ethical thinking and action, acting “as if” we know the difference between and can accurately judge “right” from “wrong.” Under that Framework, even if one is radically skeptical of knowing things objectively, one can act as if, for example, Churchill is better than Stalin.
I don’t know why I prefer one thing over another. So although I find myself disgusted by the new “conservatism” in the Trumpist mold, and I can articulate why, I’m never sure that the analytical framework I use to articulate my disgust is more than a post hoc rationalization justifying what I prefer.
outstanding summary. I've read Bloom's book several times, but I think with your thesis in mind I'm going to read it again with a fresh set of eyes.
That said, I do think that the intellectual left overstates the degree to which Strauss has influenced conservative thought. I think for example that Russell Kirk, Hayek, Ayn Rand, et. al, have been much bigger intellectual influences. Dollars to donuts, 99% of conservatives have never heard of Strauss, and the most influential Straussian work to appear to date (Bloom's book) mentions him only in passing.
As a conservative, this really hit home: "A sense of desperation about the political fate of moral truth can inspire a panicked response that seems to excuse the abandonment of ordinary restraints on tactics, with whatever works becoming the overriding principle."
Man, that is so true. I think that those of us on the right who still believe in liberal democracy need to always keep that in mind. How we do things matter as much or more than what we do.
You have written an excellent short presentation of Strauss’s philosophical outlook that rightly distinguishes the “True Straussians” who “view politics with a measure of ironic distance” from the Claremont Straussians who are in a perpetual state of unjustifiable moral panic.
I was fortunate enough to study with one of the True Straussians. On occasions he would remark to his students, “You could do worse than to take to heart the old Greek saw “Love as if you would one day hate, and hate as if you would one day love.” He would also say, “Sometimes it’s better to stick with the disaster you know rather than switch to the one you don’t know.” Strauss’s writing is full of irony, and irony is incompatible with anything having to do with Trump. One of my favorites is his stinging characterization that Locke's political philosophy in the end boils down to the proposition that, "Life is the joyless quest for joy."
I suspect these two entries have a more narrow appeal, but as someone who opted not to go the Master's route after getting Poli Sci degree, I enjoy these types of posts as they are a bit of a teaser of what awaited me.
Strauss' ascent out of the cave beneath the cave reminded me powerfully of Jonathan Haidt's plea to liberals to become aware of other moral goods besides those of WEIRD people.